Back to research feed

Acta neurochirurgica

July 22, 2026 · via Europe PMC

Endoscopic techniques for removal of intraorbital foreign bodies - a clinical series.

Chrzanowski R, Rybaczek M, Mariak Z, Sieskiewicz A, Lyson T

Journal ArticleAbstract only — full text under license

AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only

Purely endoscopic techniques removed most intraorbital foreign bodies safely, with failures limited to small deep non-magnetic pellets.

What was studied

Consecutive series of 16 patients (11 metallic, 5 organic foreign bodies) treated endoscopically at a tertiary centre in 2015-2023 using transethmoidal, transmaxillary, transconjunctival or retrocanthal routes with neuronavigation.

Key findings

  • Removal succeeded in 13 of 16 patients; failures were deep, small, non-ferromagnetic air-gun pellets.
  • No new visual or neurological deficits occurred, and transient periorbital oedema resolved in all.
  • Removing wooden fragments led to regression of presumed tumor-like inflammatory masses in three patients.

Clinical relevance

Endoscopic routes offer a minimally invasive alternative to open surgery for deep orbital foreign bodies when chosen to avoid critical structures.

Who should care

Neurosurgery

Limitations

Small single-centre case series without a comparison group, so safety and success cannot be compared with open approaches.

Consider individualized endoscopic approaches with neuronavigation for deep intraorbital foreign bodies, choosing the most direct path away from the optic nerve.

This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Management of intraorbital foreign bodies (IOFBs) is challenging due to the confined space and proximity of neurovascular and ocular structures. The increasing adoption of endoscopic techniques has expanded minimally invasive treatment options. We report operative corridors, indications, and outcomes of various endoscopic approaches in a consecutive series.

METHOD

We analyzed 16 patients with IOFBs treated between 2015 and 2023 at a tertiary university center. All procedures were performed using exclusively endoscopic techniques. Eleven IOFBs were metallic and five organic. Surgical strategy was individualized according to IOFB location and included endoscopic transethmoidal, transmaxillary, transconjunctival, and retrocantal approaches. Neuronavigation was used in all cases with adjunctive fluoroscopy or ultrasonography when indicated.

RESULTS

Nine IOFBs were intraconal and seven extraconal. Successful removal was achieved in 13 of 16 patients. All unsuccessful attempts involved small, non-ferromagnetic air-gun pellets located deep in the posterior orbit; these patients remain under observation without delayed inflammatory complications. No new postoperative visual deterioration or neurological deficits occurred. Transient periorbital edema was observed in all patients and resolved spontaneously. Cosmetic outcomes were satisfactory in all but one case with extensive initial soft-tissue loss. In three patients with presumed orbital tumors, removal of wooden fragments led to regression of inflammatory masses on follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic techniques represent a valuable alternative to traditional open approaches, especially for deep-seated lesions. The optimal approach should prioritize the most direct path to the target, avoiding critical structures such as the optic nerve, extraocular muscles, ciliary nerves and vessels to minimize the risk of permanent deficits.

DOI

10.1007/s00701-026-06986-1

PMID

42894073

PMCID

PMC13677641

Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.

Want more like this?

Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.

Back to the research feed

Create a free account · Sign in